Objecting to the use of “game” because it is not “natural” has the same logical foundation as objecting to a Spanish speaker learning English so as to more effectively navigate US culture upon immigration.

Suppose you want to have sex with your wife. You might say the “natural” thing to do is to say “Honey dearest, I would like to have sex with you. What do you think of that?” That body of knowledge colloquially referred to as “game” contains the wise revelation that such a tactic is unlikely to be very arousing to your wife. Game would counsel a different tactic – such as sweeping her off her feet and carrying her over the threshold.

Likewise, the hungry Spanish speaker in the US will typically find “I would like a hamburger, please” to be more effective than “Quiero una hamburguesa, por favor.”

It is simply a matter of using what works to reach mutual satisfaction. One who wants hamburgers and sex is well advised to use effective measures to obtaining them – such as the local language and game, respectively.

Now, there are other options. A horny man could rape a woman off the street. A hungry Spanish speaker could rob a restaurant. But these actions are categorically different from language and game, because the imply a lack of consent on behalf of the acted-upon party.

Which is why game is fundamentally ethical. Presumably, your wife wants you to turn her on and have sex with her – why not do that effectively? Likewise, restaurants want to sell their wares – why not ask for your hamburger in the language understood by the cashier?

We are not Vulcans, and our sexuality reflects as much.

More at Dalrock.

Advertisements